Placement of I-69 puts cities, residents at odds
When state and federal officials began to fill the many gaps in the construction of Interstate 69 in South Texas, some opted for new alignments. Others simply renamed existing highways. Just look at the former US-59 corridor through Houston.
The NAFTA-driven roadway is slated to extend from Port Huron, Michigan, to “some place” in South Texas. Routing the road to Laredo would be the shortest route, 1,705 miles. To McAllen would check in at 1,769 miles. Proponents of ending the road at Brownsville were stuck with trying to “sell” its 1,825-mile, longest path.
The “three-pronged freeway” plan would see the right-of-way pass through the Houston area, then split at Victoria. The Laredo-bound, so-called I-69W, would then go through the Goliad region – continuing on the US-59 right-of-way – and split again, at I-37; one leg would head straight south (I-69C) to McAllen. The longest of the suggested routings would depart Victoria, headed for Brownsville (I-69E), passing through the Refugio area via the old US-77 corridor.
Meanwhile, the on-going debate has featured loud voices on all sides. Proponents say the interstate is an economic necessity and will revitalize cities along the corridor. They contend that commercial traffic between Mexico and Canada must be taken off already crowded roads and moved to new rights-of-way. Opponents say I-69 is a “pork-barrel” project, with overestimated economic benefits. Some say the money could be better spent in an area that needs other kinds of revitalization. They point out that the building of I-69 may bring construction jobs to South Texas, but, once the road is done, so are the jobs.
Read more: https://www.mysoutex.com/goliad_advance_guard/news/features/placement-of-i--puts-cities-residents-at-odds/article_f40e0a98-36c5-11e9-92ed-9793d97fc9d9.html